[Hi all, this is a useful interview for those of us interested in trying to
work out what the Bush regime means by actual and virtual war. By the looks
of it, Rumsfeld has been reading Deleuze and Guattari's _Nomadology. ;-).
John.]
------------------------------------
The New York Times
September 4, 2002
Rumsfeld's Search for a Way to Fight a New Type of Foe
By THOM SHANKER
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/04/international/04RUMS.html?todaysheadlines

This interview is the first of a series in which national and world figures
reflect on the terrorist attacks and their effect on a year of public life
and policy.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3 - The deadliest strength of America's new adversaries is
their very fluidity, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld believes.
Terrorist networks, unburdened by fixed borders, headquarters or
conventional forces, are free to study the way this nation responds to
threats and adapt themselves to prepare for what Mr. Rumsfeld is certain
will be another attack.
"It goes to school on you," Mr. Rumsfeld said, referring to the country's
enemies in a recent interview reflecting on events since Sept. 11. "It
watches how you're behaving and then alters and adjusts at relatively little
cost, relatively little time, relatively little training to those
incremental changes we make in how we do things."
Al Qaeda, for example, has leaders and budgets and command-and-control and
has proved it can inflict terrible damage, yet it cannot be attacked in a
traditional battle.
Mr. Rumsfeld, inside a Pentagon built of bricks and mortar and, now,
bomb-resistant, shatterproof glass, focuses on maneuvering a
steel-and-circuitry military so its forces can better fight a "virtual
enemy."
"Business as usual won't do it," he said. His answer is to develop swifter,
more lethal ways to fight, including pre-emptive strikes, although he
acknowledged, "Big institutions aren't swift on their feet" in adapting but
rather "ponderous and clumsy and slow." In terrorist networks, on the other
hand, "changes can be cheaper, quicker, and for a period - a longer period
than in our case - but for a period, invisible."
Looking ahead, Mr. Rumsfeld expressed consternation with the "frenzy" over
possible military action against Iraq because it distracts from the larger
issues: fighting terror and keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the
hands of a number of adversaries.
Even so, it remains unclear whether administration-wide frustration with the
current public debate over toppling President Saddam Hussein also reflects
anger that the issue got away from a White House that is expected to begin
this week to make its case more forcefully.
"I'm not frustrated," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "What I'm trying to do is to get
people's eyes up on what I think to be the big issue that needs to be talked
about and is going to help inform a lot of issues, a lot of people's ways of
thinking about things."
In the year since Sept. 11, a time in which, Mr. Rumsfeld says, every day
was like living two, it is clear that a number of guidelines in the campaign
reflect his personal calibrations.
The United States must be seen by its allies and by its enemies as "leaning
forward, not back," he says, because a nation viewed as faint of heart is
one that invites attack.
Because it is impossible to guard against terrorist attack in every place
and at every time, self-defense requires pre-emption, he argues - taking the
battle to the terrorists and to those states that support them. That,
according to Mr. Rumsfeld, requires a more flexible way of building
coalitions, seeking allies but refusing to allow pressure from them to
restrict American action.
Mr. Rumsfeld rankles at the description of America as unilateralist, and
routinely cites the number of nations that openly joined the offensive
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan - and he hints at those
whose assistance cannot be mentioned because of their domestic political
sensitivities.
He accepts the importance of diplomacy, law enforcement, intelligence and
financial tools to fight terror, but believes the nation must accept the
risk that American lives will be lost.
All this flows from a view that the attacks of Sept. 11 resulted in a major
shift in the world, offering opportunities to establish new relationships
and to reorder global institutions in ways that will have dramatic effects
on how the United States defends itself and keeps the peace for decades to
come.
And as much as anyone else in the administration, the secretary has warned
that the campaign against terror will be lengthy, costly and bloody - the
antithesis of a push-button, cruise-missile war fought at long distance.
Even before he returned to the Defense Department after a quarter-century
absence, Mr. Rumsfeld was arguing that the military must be reconfigured for
new enemies who would exploit America's unexamined vulnerabilities.
On his watch, that turned out to be four hijacked jetliners, including one
that swooped low over American war dead at Arlington National Cemetery to
crash into the Pentagon during the morning rush hour on Sept. 11.
Although his wartime news briefings brought into the vernacular terms that
were previously the monopoly of military officers and academics, Mr.
Rumsfeld said he objects to even his own jargon on the new war, including
the bumper-sticker label of terrorism as the "asymmetrical threat."
"I don't like it," he said. "I wish I knew an alternative. I wish I knew a
better way of saying `weapons of mass destruction.' And if I had some time,
I'd sit down and think about it."
But there are other battles on his agenda, including budget fights. So far,
he has already emerged the victor over Congress and the army in a fight to
cancel a next-generation field artillery piece, the Crusader. In that
battle, Mr. Rumsfeld now admits, he had more at risk politically if, as
defense secretary, he could not finally kill a weapons system, than could
actually be gained along the Pentagon's bottom line. "It was more important
not to lose it than to win it, as a practical matter," he said. "Over time,
over a tour, it will be one of a series of programmatic changes that we've
already made and we will make as we go forward."
That last bit is Rumsfeld code language, a clear warning that even as the
fight against terrorism continues, battles will be waged within the Pentagon
and on Capitol Hill as other multi-billion-dollar weapons systems are put on
the block.
Mr. Rumsfeld said he feels that an essential part of his job is keeping
America pointed to true north, or at least true north as guided by his
compass, during the campaign against terror. It is something he has done by
spending more time in front of the cameras than any other cabinet member.
Whether an expression of the Rumsfeld personal style, the nature of
Washington politics or the needs of a wounded nation, the administration's
most visible communicator has been the one who says only what he wants and
no more.
It is a skill praised by no less a citizen than the commander in chief. "I
want to learn how you answer questions," the president told his defense
secretary after their meeting at Mr. Bush's Texas ranch late last month.
"They tell me you're quite good at it."
The secret is taking command of the agenda, said Mr. Rumsfeld. Make others
respond to your world view, he counsels, or you will waste your day reacting
to initiatives from them.
Of course, that requires a firmly held world view and clearly articulated
goals - which are in no short supply with Mr. Rumsfeld. Allies and
adversaries concede that his abundant certainty makes him a devastating
player in a town that usually operates by untidy consensus.
Asked if Americans have the will to support what could be broader military
action, Mr. Rumsfeld said: "My hope is that they'll have it because of the
fact that the need is there and that democratic people, free people, have a
pretty good center of gravity."
He warned, however, that terrorists would doubtless provide additional and
vicious evidence of the need for vigilance.
"The other way they'll have it is if we're punctuated periodically with
additional terrorist attacks that remind us that we do have an obligation to
ourselves and our system and our friends and allies around the world to
behave responsibly," he said.

************************************************************************************
Distributed through Cyber-Society-Live [CSL]: CSL is a moderated discussion
list made up of people who are interested in the interdisciplinary academic
study of Cyber Society in all its manifestations.To join the list please visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/cyber-society-live.html
*************************************************************************************